A letter dated October 31 from the Allahabad High Court Bar Association asks the Awadh Bar Association at Lucknow to help have Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal restrained from judicial work over two bail orders that, the Association alleges, tarnished the image of the advocate community.
Prayagraj: Orders passed by Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal on October 28 and 29 have carried the Bar-Bench standoff at the Allahabad High Court to Lucknow, with the Allahabad High Court Bar Association asking the newly elected office-bearers of the Awadh Bar Association, Lucknow Bench, to take steps to ensure that he is restrained from judicial proceedings [Allahabad High Court Bar Association letter to Awadh Bar Association, October 31, 2026].
Who wrote, and to whom
Dated October 31, the letter is signed by the Association’s newly elected president, Senior Advocate Dr C.P. Upadhyay, and general secretary Santosh Kumar Mishra. Copies went separately to the chairman of the Awadh Bar Association and to its newly elected president and general secretary.
The two orders the Association objects to
Both are bail orders of Justice Deshwal: one dated October 28 in Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Bail Application No. 32917 of 2026), the other dated October 29 in Ankit Singh alias Anant Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Bail Application No. 36572 of 2026). According to the letter, both orders were directly against the advocate community, and through his observations the judge attempted to create differences among advocates.
“In the order dated 29.10.2026, the Hon’ble Judge made every possible effort to create differences among us advocates, which is highly condemnable.”
The Association states that advocates protested against the two orders, as a result of which Justice Deshwal could not sit in his courtroom on either day. It asks the Awadh Bar to take appropriate steps to have the judge restrained from judicial proceedings, adding that the interests and dignity of advocates should not be adversely affected.
These are the Association’s allegations. The orders themselves record the judge’s objections to the disruption of court proceedings, and the letter’s characterisation of them has not been tested before any forum.
Where it began: a seating objection in Court No. 49
The trail leads back to October 27, when a dispute arose in the courtroom of Justice Ajay Bhanot (Court No. 49) over the seating of a police officer. According to the Bar Association, a Superintendent of Police was seated in the row behind the Additional Government Advocate; when an advocate objected, the Additional Government Advocate complained to the judge, who, the Association claims, reprimanded the advocate, threatened to send him to jail and asked him to apologise to the officer. The Association also alleged that mocking remarks were made about Senior Advocate V.P. Srivastava, who was present in court.
The Association then sought the Chief Justice’s intervention and warned that its members would boycott Justice Bhanot‘s court. On October 28, a group of lawyers allegedly raised slogans and disrupted proceedings in that courtroom, and visuals of chairs being thrown and furniture overturned surfaced. The same day, Justice Deshwal took serious exception in his order to the disruption caused by advocates outside his courtroom.
What a Bar letter can and cannot do
A Bar Association has no power to restrain a sitting High Court judge from hearing cases. The allocation of judicial work rests with the Chief Justice as master of the roster, and complaints about a judge’s conduct follow the in-house procedure, not resolutions or letters from Bar bodies. The letter is therefore best read as an attempt to build a common front between the Bars at Prayagraj and Lucknow.
The episode also shows how quickly a dispute over one courtroom can spread. A seating objection before one judge has drawn in a second judge’s judicial orders, kept him from sitting for two days, and now reached the Lucknow Bench, leaving the High Court’s administrative side with the task of restoring normal functioning.
Subject: Representation by the Allahabad High Court Bar Association to the Awadh Bar Association, Lucknow
Date of Letter: October 31, 2026
Signatories: Dr C.P. Upadhyay (President) and Santosh Kumar Mishra (General Secretary)
Orders referred to: Devendra Kumar v. State of U.P. (Bail Application No. 32917 of 2026, October 28, 2026); Ankit Singh alias Anant Singh v. State of U.P. (Bail Application No. 36572 of 2026, October 29, 2026), Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal
